Bernie, "balls" are not enough, such a President must leave in his wake a scene that leaves us and the world safer than the scene he inherited. By lowering the threshold for defensive preemptive strike, the world is made less safe in the future when small regional conflicts are initiated based on similar standards of "clear and present danger".
By choosing to remove Saddam by force rather than by stealth, or even bribe (I am sure that with 10% of the Iraq cost of now $200 B, Saddam toppling could have been achieved peacefully), we incur major financial problems, when we can least afford it (butter and gun policy is what led to the 70' economic malaise...).
Shifting the tax burden from corporations and top earners to retired people, does not put money in consumer pockets endangering the sustainability of the current recovery. (in the 50/60, during Republican rule and up to about 63, corporations paid 21% plus of the tax burden, today, less than 8%, is that what Modern Republicans believe should be the fair tax burden sharing?)
It is not a question of liking Bush or not, I am a Republican fiscal conservative, on the verge of being an isolationist, and as such the current fiscal profligacy is, IMHO, an error. It is the policies that I abhor, not the person. I don't know Bush well enough to like or dislike him.
As for foreign policy, creating an artificial break with Germany and France, as not unavoidable, and an error. Furthermore, as an other instance, what would have been lost if in his common statement with Sharon, he would have accepted only "minor realignment" to the 67 lines, rather than going gang ho one sidedly and essentially taking the larger settlements off the negotiation table? What would have hurt our international policy if he would have emphasized that it is up to the Palestinians to accelerate the peace process rather than slow it down, since the longer they wait, the less "practical" it would be to dismantle major settlements in the west bank.
For that matter, how about some original thinking on the west bank, what if the settlement issues was dealt separately of a peace agreement and borders agreement, and the settlers would either chose to leave, if they are deep within the future "Palestinian State", or stay and accept Palestinian citizenship, just as Arabs in Israel have Israeli citizenship? Why is it necessary to uproot these settlements if there is peace between the two countries? Are they suggesting that a peace agreement will involve resettling Arabs from Um el Pahem to Jericho, or Abu Gosh to Hebron? Do we really need another Punjab?
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
